So my quiet town had a visit from our traveller 'friends' this week and

[AndThatsWhatIThinkOfYou]

They wonder why people are so against them setting up camp where ever they please.

They arrived last Wednesday on a football field with a park and caused a whole load of trouble, for example, going to the petrol station handing over euros, being told they won't accept euros as payment, they simple got in their vans and drove of.

Made a visit to our local Sainsburys got caught shoplifting, were locked in until police were called.

Local children playing on park got beaten up with sticks by the traveller children.

And to top it all of 3 vans pulling up outside a local pub, very busy, dropping their trousers and all three disgusting men casually took a shit one by one on the pub doorstep. Got in there vans and drove of.

Then left the football field and park in an absolute mess. Rubbish everywhere.

Each incident police were called but nothing has been done.

So AIBU to wonder why travellers think this behavior is acceptable? and why can't anything be done to stop it?

I do not believe if Travellers moved into a neighbourhood and behaved themselves that people would be antagonistic towards them.

Tabitha: Sadly, you are very wrong about that.

Tabotha,

Ethnicity / cultural background does influence some aspects pof behaviour and lifestyle.

People from a Muslim background are likely to dress in particular ways, eat / avoid particular foods and follow certain rituals. They are also likely to visit certain places both locally (local mosque) and internationally (Mecca). They may have, or not have, particular furniture or belongings in their home that are different from those in a Christian or atheist home.

People who are ethnically Chinese may speak a particular language, eat and cook in particular ways, and have particular attitudes e.g. towards education, the treatment of older members of society etc.

To say that ethnicity does not influence behaviour or lifestyle seems ...unimaginative .. at best

Hello

It might be helpful to clarify the MNHQ position on this.

Posters are welcome to describe their personal experiences of interactions with Travellers (or any other group) - positive or negative.

But we will delete reported posts that make blanket negative assertions or generalisations about all Travellers.

We'd appreciate it if you could bear this distinction in mind, please.

Thanks
MNHQ

I sincerely hope that children growing up in schools alongside traveller children will be more tolerant than previous generations

I suggest you go and have a read of the Ofsted report for Crays Hill Primary School.

The school is entirely traveler children now and the achievement levels are all in the lowest quintile.

No children achieved level 4 in the level 2 English and reading tests in 2010 and in 2011 and 2012 the percentage attain to them was less than 5%, in writing it was zero in 2010 and 2011 and again single figures in 2012. They are in the lowest quintile for progress for English and maths. No children have ever achieved level 4 in maths.

Attendance is well under 50%. The children begin in reception class uniformly with skills below average for their age.

Previous Ofsted reports have raised concerns about the children's behaviour.

As a result of these problems local non-traveler children don't attend the school any more. I don't really see how any responsible parent could let their child attend such a school when an alternative was available.

I'm sure that in small groups travelers children will thrive in schools, but it does seem that if they arrive in any numbers they have an adverse effect on the standard of educations in schools.

Incidentally in many cases travelers don't send their children to school at all, particularly not secondary school and girls especially.

I think perhaps your hope is in vain when such negative effects occur when large numbers of traveler children attend a school.

I don't see why people have the right to choose a lifestyle and expect others to pay for it.

I wonder with the figure stated 2 years ago of 18600 travellers living in the UK, where you think this number of council/housing association properties will come from for them Tabitha?

Surely it would be far cheaper and better for everyone (settled and travelling people) to support their wish to live in trailers, and their culture, therefore not increasing an already stretch social housing sector?

What would you like to do then tabitha about all those people who choose to live in a house and claim housing benefit? What is the difference?

Part of the reason for the reputational issues is that anti-social behaviour of settled communities is somewhat "ghettoised". Those with repetitively poor behaviour do it in their own area and not in leafy suburbs or pleasant villages, so the populations of those places have never witnessed that behaviour from settled people. In contrast those travellers who demonstrate anti-social behaviour and move weekly can give 52 different places an experience of anti-social behaviour in a year. Usual caveats, it isn't all of them, they aren't a single group etc. You also might not even notice travellers in your area who parked up in an out of the way place and behaved reasonably, so your perception is skewed to those who behave poorly.

I think Afromum made an interesting point a long while back (I've only just returned to this thread)

'However in my professional and personal experience the sorts of incidents that are occurring within traveller communities are no different to those happening in many disadvantaged areas (except the caravans) the length and breadth of the country's council estates. (And no that's not a dig at ALL people who live on council estates, the same as not ALL travellers act in an anti-social way!)'

I think that all the people, including MNetters, who have chosen to live in a nice area with good schools and lovely shops would react in exactly the same way if members rough housing estate were suddenly dumped on their doorstep. If you live in a place you love and enjoy and feel safe in, any perceived threat would trigger a negative response. But for a lot of people, the nastiness is far away in another place, not suddenly on the cricket pitch with the local ducks being BBQ'd.

Especially when said lifestyle benefits neither them or the community they live in. At this rate, the problems that travellers face - low lifespan, lack of education, bad health, lack of womens rights, will be there forever, because no-one will tackle the causes for fear of being called racist and not respecting the traveller "way of life".

xpost breatheslowly.

My school was c. 1/3 traveller (every local traveller child attended from the first day of their reception year - we were very proud of that)

We had just started to attract, in droves, children from the neighbouring MC village who suddenly realised that we were providing a much better standard of education that their 'lovely little village school'.

I agree that the presence of travellers was a factor in other families NOT moving their children - but as our Ofsted was Good with Outstanding features and theirs was one of the worst 'straight into Special measures' reports I have ever seen, most realised that educational standards were not in doubt.

We were probably helped by being a village school, in an area of fairly widely-spread villages, and in such situations far more children do just go to their local school, avoiding a 'Traveller-only' scenario.

mrz, another frequent Education poster, teaches in a school with a traveller minority too. Anyone who reads her posts will realise that such a profile does not damage her educational aspirations for all her pupils.

"I wonder with the figure stated 2 years ago of 18600 travellers living in the UK, where you think this number of council/housing association properties will come from for them Tabitha? "

The same place that houses came from for the significantly higher number of immigrants that have come to the UK in the last decade or so.

Ah, we're onto immigrants now, are we Tabitha?

Whilst everyone sits around theorizing, did it ever occur to you that 'good' travellers or those with such ancestry could be reading?

How fucking insulting is this thread.

Part of our family has traveller ancestry - and I'm not insulted.

I think the way a lot of the travelling community behave is appalling.

"Ah, we're onto immigrants now, are we Tabitha?"

Did Poles etc expect the government to provide special homes for them and moan about being discriminated against? Or did they just get on with things, find somewhere to live and find jobs?

Truth hurts, perhaps it would do some good for them (the ones that cause all the havoc, and a trail of destruction) to see it.

Yes but these house haven't appeared for those people, it has merely stretched the waiting lists hugely, to the position that most on the list will not get a property for several years. An influx of a further several thousand families would increase these lists further still, not helping anyone. Whereas providing legal sites would provide a place for several families to live at a much lesser cost to the council/tax payer and not infringe people's rights to follow whatever culture they choose.

Tabitha is your point that houses were provided for immigrants or weren't? Your last two posts are contradictory.

There was a Law passed that each Council had to provide legal sites. Such was the HUGE outcry from local communities that no Planning Permission was granted and, so, they did not come into being. I wonder why people were so against them?

It seems that many of their problems are as a result of their culture. The lack of education, especially for women, seems to be a choice, not something they are being denied. I object to how they treat children/girls/women as I would object to the treatment of children/girls/women in Afganistan. Why should this be tolerated in the UK as cultural rights but objected to in Afganistan (or anywhere else in the world where education is denied to girls/children) as denying basic rights (Every Child Matters, etc)?

I trust that anybody in favour of more of these traveller sites would be more than happy to live next door to one, and send their children to a school with many traveller children enrolled?

If so, fine. But I think there would be some changes of minds down the line. Just like the likes of Billy Bragg who raves on about how good Multiculturalism is for London, but moved to almost 100% white Dorset "for the sake of his children".

are you real Tabitha? I can't believe your posts haven't been deleted. This is the most offensive thread I read in a while. I'll go now.

"Tabitha is your point that houses were provided for immigrants or weren't? Your last two posts are contradictory."
They weren't. I never stated that they were.